Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU tested in Bosnia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • EU tested in Bosnia

    Europe's security and defence policy tested in Bosnia

    >The European Union's Security and Defence Policy is evolving rapidly. In Bosnia the EU has taken over peacekeeping duties from Nato - the force aiming to give an absolute guarantee that conflict and tensions won't boil over again. It's an ambitious plan - and a major challenge. The EU has to prove to the international community that it can become a true player in global security. Is it working on the ground, does the rhetoric match the reality?<

    link: http://www.euronews.net/create_html....uropeans&lng=1

    I think EU can be a great stabilizing force in the world if it would only increase it's defence spending.

  • #2
    the EU doesn't need to increase its defence spending, it just needs to organise it in a much better way.

    Europe has over a million men in uniform, it has only 4 aircraft carriers yet 100-odd frigate/destroyer type ships.

    the problem comes from each nation having a seperate military structure, resources are wasted on a massive scale. its a bit like every state in the US having its own seperate military structure and them 'lending' bits to the US federal government, the result would be that the US's deployable force would be miniscule because of the duplication.

    the EU doesn't need one big standing unified military force, but it does need to pool its financial resources in a much better way.
    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Would not a more effective EU military also affect the balance of power in the existing NATO alliance?
      When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

      Comment


      • #4
        only in a good way, the more deployable troops you have means your can put out more fires quicker.

        the US doesn't seem to give a monky's about NATO because there are no real threats within NATO's area of operation. the US's concerns are china/north korea, the middle east and a resurgent nationalsm in south america.

        the more capable european arm of NATO might mean that the US would not be needed for kosovo type operations, the US would like that as it frees up troops and airpower for other problems.

        whether the US likes its allies to be true 'partners' (with the military and economic muscle to tell them to get lost) or more subservient 'client states' only an american could tell you.

        certainly europe has the financial and human muscle to 'look after' africa, the US may have to get serious about china in the near future so the middle east could be chopped to europe to handle. not ideal, and that might mean more cash, but not too much - the middle east and africa don't require B-2's and F/A-22's just lots of infantrymen, which europe already has.
        before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Dave,

          What you seem to be proposing sounds all well and good seen with European eyes. Yet it would require a united EU fielding a unified military command. The last few months wrangling inside and outside the Commision shows that they are if anything, disunited.
          Here you are talking about one of the sacred cows of any sovereign nation: their military. Getting 25 independent nations to agree to a common defence structure and or policy seems a bit utopic.
          Common sense says that it's good and logical step forward. But putting on the reality glasses, says no-way, unless circumstances force their hands.
          When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree with Amled.
            When there was agreement of EUs rapid response units that has troops from all EU nations it caused much opposition from media and peoples. For example in Finland there was huge complaining how "our boys will get back in coffins" and at that time we were talking about 200 volunteers.
            It seems that in many european countries peoples think that militaries should stay in their own countries and they are only for defensive operations. And it would be better if there woulnd be any casualties.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the unified military command will be hard to reach, but in some 10 years we will see it. I agree with Dave about the need to better organise the armys and lower the number of men, but I also stick to my idea that more money should be spend on hi-tech equipment. This money will return to european industry so it's even an good investment for our security and industry.

              Comment


              • #8
                i think theres a fundamental difference between EU structures and european sructures. if the EU is involved then i think your points are entirely accurate, however if we talk about european structures outside the EU then we could be on to something.

                example: the UK and france have a political/military technical agreement on joint air-defence. it means that both countries operate a 'pool' of air-defence assets jointly in a single air-defence environment. so an intruder into british airspace could beintercepted by a french fighter operating with a british tanker and british AWACS with a french ground control intercept officer.

                similar naval agreements exist with the provision of joint air cover / anti-submarine warfare cover of respective fleets.

                i think the that the EU is going to be scaled back as the driving force of european political co-operation, but i think european co-operation on military and foriegn policy issues will increase in both depth and breadth. i think there will be an increasing divergence on some political/economic issues like trade and 'social europe' and a coming together in military terms of those countries who are prepared to send troops overseas.

                so that the more 'liberal' countries will co-operate on economic issues, while the more 'socialist' countries concentrate on social europe, yet those from both economic wings will co-operate on joint military operations and doctrine. a kind of mix and match europe.
                before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Bosnia is not a good measure for EUROCORPs. It's not a new mission. Same soldiers. Same mission. Different patch.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    the colonel is right to highlight that bosnia is the same job everyone in NATO has been doing for ten years but with a new hat, so its not a 'test' in any real sense of the word. that said theres nothing like a nice easy excercise to ground in any new procedures and chain of command issues. think of bosnia as a 'talk through, walk through' excercise for eurocorps.

                    a real 'test' would be regime change, a humanitarian support operation and nation building in zimbabwe or sudan. that is the kind of operation europe should be able to complete without help - or leadership - from the US.

                    the materiel is all there - save some air-transport assets - to do this kind of operation ie: a german soldier can talk to a french AWACS controller and bring in a british airstrike, but the political will and the defence logistics structure isn't there.
                    before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Dave,
                      You raised some very interesting (and for me new) perspectives. I especially liked:
                      ...so that the more 'liberal' countries will co-operate on economic issues, while the more 'socialist' countries concentrate on social europe, yet those from both economic wings will co-operate on joint military operations and doctrine. a kind of mix and match europe.
                      A sort of doctrine that is all things to all men. there is something for everybody.
                      As for:
                      ...the materiel is all there - save some air-transport assets - to do this kind of operation ie: a german soldier can talk to a french AWACS controller and bring in a british airstrike, but the political will and the defence logistics structure isn't there.
                      Well, once the need and/or public outcry arises, political will tends to follow thereby giving impetus to the establishment of the proper defence logistics structure.
                      Belatedly probably! But we can hope better late then never.
                      When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't think a viable EU force will ever become a reality because the politicians will never use it, they know they will never use it, and they will never fully fund something they never intend to use.

                        -dale

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Europeans only acted together twice as a military force - Albania and the initial ISAF. Albania was impressive but the ISAF was a fiasco that simply did not produce viable combat forces. Everybody comitted piecemeal mostly at the company level and some at the platoon level.

                          The Canadians were asked for 300 engineers. The CF response was that the ISAF take a battle group or they take nothing. The result?

                          3 PPCLI BG was assigned to the 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assualt).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As much as the Europeans like to state that NATO is over, it is still by far the most effective military structure that they have. EUROFORCE goal of 60,000 when compared to NATO's goal of 20,000 is overstretching alot of resources and some that they still don't have. The Americans have the C-17 right now. Airbus have not got off the drawing boards yet.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X